MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160917074 · doi:10.1142/s0218194013500113

USING TEST ORACLES AND FORMAL SPECIFICATIONS WITH TEST-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT

2013· article· en· W2160917074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDocumentationSoftware engineeringFormal specificationProgramming languageTest (biology)Formal methodsTest caseNotationTest Management ApproachTest-driven developmentTest suiteProcess (computing)Software developmentSoftwareSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper illustrates how Test Oracles and Formal Specifications, with appropriate tool support, can be used with Test-Driven Development (TDD). In TDD, the test code is a formal documentation of the required behavior of the component or system that is being developed, but this documentation is necessarily incomplete and often over-specific. We describe an alternative approach to TDD that is to develop the specification of the required behavior in a formal notation as a part of the TDD process and to generate test oracles from that specification. We present the results of using this approach to develop programs used in a project at the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it